Commonwealth v. Gonzalez
86 Mass. App. Ct. 253
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Luis Gonzalez was convicted of armed carjacking, armed robbery, and witness intimidation in Essex Superior Court.
- During deliberations, the jury asked about a possibly sleeping juror; the judge declined a voir dire on the issue.
- A second jury question referenced a juror biased toward police; the judge did not clearly determine if it referred to the same juror.
- The trial court admitted evidence of eighteen to nineteen prior convictions for impeachment should Gonzalez testify.
- Gonzalez appealed, challenging trial delay and related procedural issues, among other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was voir dire required on a sleeping juror question? | Gonzalez; Braun dictates voir dire when reliable sleep information is received. | Commonwealth; not necessary due to trial judge's handling and potential deliberative process concerns. | Reversible error; new trial warranted due to failure to voir dire. |
| Was the juror-bias question properly addressed and could an alternate be used? | Gonzalez; juror bias questions require examination to preserve fairness. | Commonwealth; no explicit, identifiable juror bias proven; discretionary handling acceptable. | Not necessary to resolve separately since the sleeping-juror issue requires remedy. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove intent to permanently deprive the victim of the car? | Latimore standard satisfied by predatory conduct and questions about the car. | Evidence insufficient to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient under Latimore to support conviction. |
| Was the admission of numerous prior convictions for impeachment an abuse of discretion? | Convictions appropriate for impeachment if Gonzalez testified. | Excessive convictions risk improper character judgment by the jury. | Remand to avoid prejudicial impact if retrial occurs; need careful calibration of impeachment evidence. |
| Did undue delay in the appeal justify relief? | Delay harmed defendant's appellate rights; some delay attributable to transcripts and record expansion. | Delay not intentional; Commonwealth's record-expansion stay should not prejudice Gonzalez. | Delay not shown to be deliberate; denial of motion for relief affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Beneche, 458 Mass. 61 (Mass. 2010) (voir dire required when juror sleeping information received)
- Commonwealth v. Dancy, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 175 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (voir dire should avoid delving into deliberations)
- Commonwealth v. Braun, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (need for voir dire in sleeping juror context)
- Commonwealth v. Dyous, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 508 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (structural error analysis for exposure to juror attentiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (Latimore standard for intent in robbery-related crimes)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (Mass. 2010) (futility considerations in appellate objections)
- Commonwealth v. Swenson, 368 Mass. 268 (Mass. 1975) (delay in appellate rights; constitutional aspects)